perhaps before going after fake fur they should go after real leather? I propose they show the courage of their conviction by matching on the Sturgis biker rally, and then let nature run it's course 
Poll: PETA declares furs heresy
- Thread starter Silentpony_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh what a bunch of daft twats.
....
That said, I would be onboard with their Black Crusade if it got GW to remove the unbelievably stupid "Space Wolves riding space wolves in outer space (wolves)" Thunderwolf Cavalry.
Or-wolf just-wolf wolf-toned their-wolf wolf-raging wolf-hard-wolf-on for-wolf naming-wolf-every-wolf-fucking-wolf-thing-wolf some-wolf variation-wolf of-wolf "wolf".
....
That said, I would be onboard with their Black Crusade if it got GW to remove the unbelievably stupid "Space Wolves riding space wolves in outer space (wolves)" Thunderwolf Cavalry.
Or-wolf just-wolf wolf-toned their-wolf wolf-raging wolf-hard-wolf-on for-wolf naming-wolf-every-wolf-fucking-wolf-thing-wolf some-wolf variation-wolf of-wolf "wolf".
What I hate most about PETA is that when public figures say anything negative about them, they're labeled nature killers.
On a sidenote, did they ever throw shit around about Battlefield 1? I mean. The game gives you points for killing horses.
On a sidenote, did they ever throw shit around about Battlefield 1? I mean. The game gives you points for killing horses.
You don't need to be in PETA to pity the horses, though. I know I'd complain if a soldier suddenly mounted me and told me to charge machine guns while kicking me in the guts. I know I'd also complain if someone thought shooting me rather than the fucker on top would score some wholly abstract form of numerical advantage. Then again, I suppose the breeding of warhorse stock increased as a result, so if your life is dependent on war I suppose you should just accept that with good graces.Bob_McMillan said:
But still ... shooting horses for points? Seems mean.
If I were a game developer I'd prefer to afford no points for shooting the horse, and simply more points for aiming more carefully and shooting the person riding them. Reward-risk mechanic. Shooting the horse is still a viable tactic for removing the soldier from the horse ... but no awarded points solely for shooting the horse.
Maybe make it a trophy if you kill ten riders without injuring the horses themselves in a row?
Well, I mean, its a game that trivializes war. What about that you get points for killing people too?Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Though if this was CoD, Im sure there would be "Animal Activist" medals or some such for killing riders without harming the horses. Would also probably be a "Glue Maker" medal for killing many horses.
Right, but it's not without precedent. I know in Battlefront you don't get poiints for simply destroying a vehicle. You got points for killing the people inside at the time, or picking them off as they got out of a doomed vehicle to be. You didn't even get additional points for destroying the vehicle with people in it beyond those people.Saelune said:
Would have been nice to get extra points however for headshotting the turret gunners on the grav tanks ....
Those sustained laser stream weapons were annoying in multiplayer. Stupid range.
Well I guess now it is a matter of what we're discussing.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
The ethics of killing virtual beings, or the value of destruction in war?
Mostly though I was pointing out this weird mixed value of life many people (myself included) have. SilentPony's picture makes fun of that, where this big dude who clearly kills tons of people all the time is being admonished solely for the pelt on his shoulders.
I don't know ... I can see the gameplay argument being a mix in there. Horse > man in terms of target size. Also less maneuverable and speed doesn't compensate entirely. So surely you want a game system to celebrate in this case careful application of fire.Saelune said:
I'm not saying remove the capacity for killing the horse, but getting points for killing the horse seems a cop-out to me that doesn't have comparative measure in other games.
Even in a simulated combat environment, it's better to kill the soldier than the horse. As expensive of national resources to provide warhorses specially trained and inured to the smell of smoke, gases, and extreme sounds of artillery fire and personal arms close to their head .... killing the horse is negligible to killing the person on top.
I don't see how you can justify an abstract measure of military worth by shooting horses over shooting the rider ... and game systems could accomodate that well enough (and do so in other games) ...
It seems like a weird thing to me. I must admit part of that weirdness comes from the fact that you're getting points for shooting a non-sapient animal incapable of ruminating on the nature of why it is dying at the hands of humans, but similarly the weirdness is also there that it doesn't entirely sink in when even with vehicles in other games (and in other Battlefield games no less) ... destroying the vehicle was about getting at the people inside and having the right arms to do so.
Sure you could damage/destroy enemy vehicles as a tactical thing, to reove them from using it against your mech for instance (2142), but you were never awarded 'kill points' ...
Even in those situations it was almost always better to let your own troopers steal it if they could and that would be its own reward.
I think a missing factor right now is how many points are each worth? I dont know, cause I did not pay attention while playing, and would not remember even if I did probably.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Maybe the difference in points does account for much of what you said. Maybe killing a horse is far less than killing the rider alone.
I also dont think DICE thought so deeply about this as you might have. Certainly Battlefield 1 intentionally eschewed reality in favor of gameplay. They have outright stated this I believe.
I would not be against playing this theoretical war game of yours, but it would probably also require matches not be isolated battles. Would have to be more like that one attack/defend game mode since resources would have to be more important in a longer term, where there is value in capturing enemy resources and arms.
It's not theoretical. Battlefield 2142. It was awesome and Titan matches were especially wicked.Saelune said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_2142
But even in regular territory control maps vehicles would respawn in certain places. So occasionally if you were a lone assaulting mech, you might target unused vehicles to 'pre-damage' to reduce their utility. But once again, still better to steal them if you could.
Traditionally in European warfare horses were more valuable then the people who rode them. In general every effort was made to preserve the horses of friend and enemy alike. A war trained animal is just that and has an intrinsic value to military organisations. There were exceptions, a clash between the west and east would see male and female warhorses mixing, this was problematic for the fighting men and generals - horses loved it apparently. But outside of such unusual occurrence, even simply as spoils, horses were often more valuable then the humans who rode and tended them.
And if you were caught indiscriminately killing enemy horses in combat you'd likely be killed yourself. An aristocratic officer would be stripped of commission and shamed. In essence horses have by and large been treated better by humans then other humans, in and out of conflict.
And if you were caught indiscriminately killing enemy horses in combat you'd likely be killed yourself. An aristocratic officer would be stripped of commission and shamed. In essence horses have by and large been treated better by humans then other humans, in and out of conflict.
What period do you mean? For many centuries horses were the property of the rider, which meant the rider had to be worth more to afford them.Namehere said:
Horses have seldom been the property of those who ride them. European armies are not the wild west. A mounted knight travels with a retinue. That retinue is mounted. Cavalry ride the Crown's horses, not their own. In many periods many men rode other men's horses. Fought wars started by other men. Squires were often mounted and never owned their own mounts. You've got to keep up with the army after all. And squires were never worth a damn for ransom. There is no denying the value of a captured war horse, especially when you're own mounted forces had lost mounts in battle. Horses are ridden after all. Have rider will war. What good is a prisoner I must feed and might never ransom back, compared to a horse I can use with the dawn?Thaluikhain said:
PETA are dumb, but they're pretty much the only animal rights group that everyone knows about
Which I don't think makes up for the dumb shit they do but there you have it
Which I don't think makes up for the dumb shit they do but there you have it
How dare you sir! Werewolf viking riding giant dire wolves in space while wielding wolf claws and wolf swords and wearing wolf pelts is the very heart of the Space Wolves!Dragonlayer said:
Yeah, no. Even dating back to the Romans you were expected to provide your own kit. Hence why Roman cavalry only made up 8% of the active units in a battlegroup and all of them were patricii. Horses were expensive, a properly trained horse who wouldn't just throw off its rider even more so. Hence why they were considered kind of garbage because a lifestyle of eating cheese and olives while lounging in courtyard gardens isn't exsctly conducive to breeding the violent tendencies born of hardship anf the idea that war is the only means to make a living and increase a family's holdings. There's stories of men at arms in the Medieval era who brought dozens of coursers and destriers given it was the beginning of a campaign. Basically with the idea that most of them would die on multiple battlefields. The Confederates during the American Civil War expected their riders to bring their own horses, as well.Namehere said:
Bedouin and Barbary raiders owned their own horses, too.
Which sounds dumb but at least guaranteed those who had them at least knew how to ride them and properly take care of them on the march. The Great War is one of the few conflicts where light horses were wholesale provided to soldiers such as Australian Imperial Forces. And that's because enlistment rates would have fallen sharply if professional "six bob a day tourists" (high compare to other Commonwealth payments) were suddenly expected to have to provide stabling and feed.
I'm with the people in the thread against killing animals in games but that's because animals are innocent while people suck and generally deserve what happens to them. That said I propose we inform the Angry Marines of this heresy and let them sort out it in their traditional manner.
-ALWAYS ANGRY ALL THE TIME
-ALWAYS ANGRY ALL THE TIME